Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Get a new bike from $50 per week

Seselja claims Labor will restore carbon and mining taxes

By Canfan 27 January 2015 37

Senator for the ACT Zed Seselja has today claimed that Labor will restore its carbon and mining tax slugs on Australians at the first opportunity.

In a press release issued following Andrew Leigh’s comments on government spending and revenue in The Australian, Seselja said:

“The confirmation from Andrew Leigh that the carbon tax would be imposed on Australians under a Labor Government highlights Labor’s support for higher electricity bills and extra cost of living pressures on Australian families.

“The carbon tax was a policy of hurting Australian families, putting jobs at risk and damaging Australia’s international competitiveness,” he said.

“In its last year of operation, the carbon tax was a $7.6 billion hit on the Australian economy and during Labor’s time electricity prices rose dramatically.

“Scrapping the carbon tax has delivered families and businesses in the ACT the biggest drop in electricity prices on record.

“According to the Consumer Price Index for the September Quarter 2014 released in October last year, power bills in the ACT are up to 11.5 per cent lower than they would have been with the carbon tax.

“The Government is committed to tackling climate change without a multi-billion dollar carbon tax that drives up the cost of living for Australian families and businesses.

“Andrew Leigh and Bill Shorten want to take away the savings ACT families and business are seeing with their plan to bring back the carbon tax,” Senator Seselja concluded.

Are you convinced? If Labor did plan to reintroduce the carbon and mining taxes, would it change the way you vote at the next election?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to
Seselja claims Labor will restore carbon and mining taxes
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
rosscoact 6:11 pm 29 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

It’s impossible to do a comparison between other countries and Australia.
For a start, France deducts 5.5% alone from wages and other earnings to part-fund its Medicare equivalent (NHI). This is over twice what the Medicare levy is in Australia. France also levies taxes on everything it can to specifically fund social services and health.
The Australian government also provides huge welfare grants to community based groups that supplement income and services for refugees/migrants. As far as I know, these are “off balance sheet” so they won’t show up in the raw data that the ABC is using.
Why do we need this ABC self-appointed taxpayer- funded “fact checker” anyway? What useful purpose does it provide?

Difficult yes, impossible no.

Why do we need fact checkers? Because at least half of what comes out of a politicians mouth is either wrong or an outright lie. Secondly because I have seen the word ‘fact’ substituted for ‘uninformed opinion’ too many times. Possibly even in this thread.

dungfungus 4:55 pm 29 Jan 15

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Bennop said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

Really? Not really : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/kevin-andrews–makes-unfounded-welfare-claim/5215798

Some interesting comments at the bottom of that article.

Yeah, It’s a very selective “fact” check.

Particularly when you consider the number one welfare spend is the age pension and Australia has specifically instituted our large Superannuation system to lower spending in this area by requiring individuals to provide much more for themselves.

There’s a number of other metrics that could be used to debate this claim for various welfare payments that weren’t even considered.

It’s impossible to do a comparison between other countries and Australia.
For a start, France deducts 5.5% alone from wages and other earnings to part-fund its Medicare equivalent (NHI). This is over twice what the Medicare levy is in Australia. France also levies taxes on everything it can to specifically fund social services and health.
The Australian government also provides huge welfare grants to community based groups that supplement income and services for refugees/migrants. As far as I know, these are “off balance sheet” so they won’t show up in the raw data that the ABC is using.
Why do we need this ABC self-appointed taxpayer- funded “fact checker” anyway? What useful purpose does it provide?

chewy14 2:51 pm 29 Jan 15

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Bennop said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

Really? Not really : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/kevin-andrews–makes-unfounded-welfare-claim/5215798

Some interesting comments at the bottom of that article.

Yeah, It’s a very selective “fact” check.

Particularly when you consider the number one welfare spend is the age pension and Australia has specifically instituted our large Superannuation system to lower spending in this area by requiring individuals to provide much more for themselves.

There’s a number of other metrics that could be used to debate this claim for various welfare payments that weren’t even considered.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 11:58 am 29 Jan 15

Bennop said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

Really? Not really : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/kevin-andrews–makes-unfounded-welfare-claim/5215798

Some interesting comments at the bottom of that article.

Bennop 11:30 am 29 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

Really? Not really : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/kevin-andrews–makes-unfounded-welfare-claim/5215798

mcs 11:28 am 29 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

Lets see you provide some proof of another of your ‘assertions of truth’ dungfungus. You make some wild claims of ‘fact’ on here (some true, some probably not true), but rarely if ever can back it up.

dungfungus 11:09 am 29 Jan 15

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

jazzamac said :

dungfungus said :

Can you also explain how the warm water is going to find its way between the glacier and the land mass it is on?

My views may be narrow but they are factual, not modelled.

Because the glacial ice extends out into the ocean and forms an ice shelf. It sits on top of the water, where the warmer water underneath it melts the ice.

Took me all of about 10 mins to do some research.

Have a read of this http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/shrinking-ice-shelves/ice-shelves/

No amount of reason, evidence or science fact or even basic physics will counter the automatic naysaying of blinkered denialists. It just wastes time and effort and should be treated as slightly annoying background noise, think galahs in a tree drunk on fermenting Lilli Pilli

But galahs actually exist and even when they are drunk they make more sense than the latest crop of “climate scientists”.
I heard one on ABC Radio this morning referring to “climate disruption”. It isn’t the climate that is changing, it is the name of the alleged condition which started as global warming, then climate change, then climate variability and now climate disruption. They could make fantasy movies about this sort of stuff. I say fantasy because none of these conditions actually exist.

I told you so.

What you didn’t tell us is that the latest “climate change induced extreme weather event” blizzard that was going to cripple New York didn’t happen, just like all the other wild predictions that you warmists make.

dungfungus 11:05 am 29 Jan 15

dkNigs said :

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

The only thing Australia leads the world in is taxpayer funded welfare entitlements. We are the envy of every developing country in the world and none of the welfare recipients give a tinker’s cuss about reducing pollution here or anywhere else.

dkNigs 7:38 am 29 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

dkNigs said :

So what? Tax the big polluters, why are we not taxing them? Abbott just created a revenue hole by ditching these taxes on his mates.

How does the Australian government tax industries in India and China because that’s where all the big polluters are. Sure, they are using our coal but that won’t be for much longer and the big pollution problem will remain.

Yea, lets not be a world leader, lets follow developing nations instead. Good plan. We’ll wait for India to leapfrog us, then do something about pollution?

HiddenDragon 7:47 pm 28 Jan 15

Even the original mining tax really was too little, and way too late, to achieve anything like what was hoped for – and then it got burnt in the Labor leadership coup.

As to the carbon tax, the addition to already high electricity prices was unwelcome, but to the extent that those prices were pushed up by “gold-plating”, well, I’m happy to have fewer and shorter power outages.

dungfungus 7:16 pm 28 Jan 15

mcs said :

dungfungus said :

mcs said :

gazket said :

. Don’t forget how much industry and job losses were created when Labor made the carbon tax law.

Any actual evidence to support this claim? I know there was plenty dished up by the media at the time of the announcement, but most were based on ‘job flows’ not ‘job losses’ – I’d be interested to see whether there has been any studies of what actual impact there was, not just that spruiked by Pollies and the media on the basis of no real evidence at all.

The closure of a couple of aluminium smelters (huge users of electricity which was already being supplied at incredibly cheap rates) come to mind.
At the time, there were many other production costs increasing and the carbon tax was seen as regressive as it was programmed to increase.
The carbon tax was another nail in the coffin for the motor vehicle industry and it contributed to a price increase in the supply of natural gas as the infrastructure used in the gas industry uses huge amounts of electricity to transfer gas across the grid.

The motor vehicle industry had been on the edge of ruin for a long time. It has only been propped up by ridiculous subsidies for a long time – it was good to finally see the pin pulled on a clearly unsustainable industry within the Australian context (which basically were a huge transfer from the taxpayer to multinational corporations). Blaming the carbon tax for the demise of that is drawing a particularly long bow.

The other examples may have more validity – I don’t know. But, at least in concept form, there was nothing wrong with the carbon tax. For in essence (ignoring the arguments around climate change etc) it meant that the cost of production for the firm more closely aligned with the actual social costs of production that incorporate the cost of negative externalities.That is not a bad thing if we actually give two hoots about things other than profit.

I was interested to see if there was any actual hard evidence collated around this issue. Most ‘job loss’ stories – because it is so often presented solely as a ‘point in time’ job loss, rather than a consideration of the actual ‘job flow’ impact (especially around the mining tax). Therefore, the impact is a hell of a lot lower than that said by either side of debate suggested.

“Blaming the carbon tax for the demise of that is drawing a particularly long bow.”
That’s not what I said. I said it was another nail in the coffin.

mcs 2:53 pm 28 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

mcs said :

gazket said :

. Don’t forget how much industry and job losses were created when Labor made the carbon tax law.

Any actual evidence to support this claim? I know there was plenty dished up by the media at the time of the announcement, but most were based on ‘job flows’ not ‘job losses’ – I’d be interested to see whether there has been any studies of what actual impact there was, not just that spruiked by Pollies and the media on the basis of no real evidence at all.

The closure of a couple of aluminium smelters (huge users of electricity which was already being supplied at incredibly cheap rates) come to mind.
At the time, there were many other production costs increasing and the carbon tax was seen as regressive as it was programmed to increase.
The carbon tax was another nail in the coffin for the motor vehicle industry and it contributed to a price increase in the supply of natural gas as the infrastructure used in the gas industry uses huge amounts of electricity to transfer gas across the grid.

The motor vehicle industry had been on the edge of ruin for a long time. It has only been propped up by ridiculous subsidies for a long time – it was good to finally see the pin pulled on a clearly unsustainable industry within the Australian context (which basically were a huge transfer from the taxpayer to multinational corporations). Blaming the carbon tax for the demise of that is drawing a particularly long bow.

The other examples may have more validity – I don’t know. But, at least in concept form, there was nothing wrong with the carbon tax. For in essence (ignoring the arguments around climate change etc) it meant that the cost of production for the firm more closely aligned with the actual social costs of production that incorporate the cost of negative externalities.That is not a bad thing if we actually give two hoots about things other than profit.

I was interested to see if there was any actual hard evidence collated around this issue. Most ‘job loss’ stories – because it is so often presented solely as a ‘point in time’ job loss, rather than a consideration of the actual ‘job flow’ impact (especially around the mining tax). Therefore, the impact is a hell of a lot lower than that said by either side of debate suggested.

dungfungus 1:09 pm 28 Jan 15

mcs said :

gazket said :

. Don’t forget how much industry and job losses were created when Labor made the carbon tax law.

Any actual evidence to support this claim? I know there was plenty dished up by the media at the time of the announcement, but most were based on ‘job flows’ not ‘job losses’ – I’d be interested to see whether there has been any studies of what actual impact there was, not just that spruiked by Pollies and the media on the basis of no real evidence at all.

The closure of a couple of aluminium smelters (huge users of electricity which was already being supplied at incredibly cheap rates) come to mind.
At the time, there were many other production costs increasing and the carbon tax was seen as regressive as it was programmed to increase.
The carbon tax was another nail in the coffin for the motor vehicle industry and it contributed to a price increase in the supply of natural gas as the infrastructure used in the gas industry uses huge amounts of electricity to transfer gas across the grid.

rosscoact 12:49 pm 28 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

jazzamac said :

dungfungus said :

Can you also explain how the warm water is going to find its way between the glacier and the land mass it is on?

My views may be narrow but they are factual, not modelled.

Because the glacial ice extends out into the ocean and forms an ice shelf. It sits on top of the water, where the warmer water underneath it melts the ice.

Took me all of about 10 mins to do some research.

Have a read of this http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/shrinking-ice-shelves/ice-shelves/

No amount of reason, evidence or science fact or even basic physics will counter the automatic naysaying of blinkered denialists. It just wastes time and effort and should be treated as slightly annoying background noise, think galahs in a tree drunk on fermenting Lilli Pilli

But galahs actually exist and even when they are drunk they make more sense than the latest crop of “climate scientists”.
I heard one on ABC Radio this morning referring to “climate disruption”. It isn’t the climate that is changing, it is the name of the alleged condition which started as global warming, then climate change, then climate variability and now climate disruption. They could make fantasy movies about this sort of stuff. I say fantasy because none of these conditions actually exist.

I told you so.

mcs 12:08 pm 28 Jan 15

gazket said :

. Don’t forget how much industry and job losses were created when Labor made the carbon tax law.

Any actual evidence to support this claim? I know there was plenty dished up by the media at the time of the announcement, but most were based on ‘job flows’ not ‘job losses’ – I’d be interested to see whether there has been any studies of what actual impact there was, not just that spruiked by Pollies and the media on the basis of no real evidence at all.

dungfungus 11:35 am 28 Jan 15

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

If fresh water ice is already floating on sea water, the level of the sea water will actually fall when that ice melts so there is no risk of the fresh water ice causing sea levels to rise as claimed by these so-called scientists.
It is all about volume and displacement – elementary primary school stuff.

It is also about thermal expansion.

I have consulted some papers I have on this subject and accept the following:
“During a period of glaciation, the average global temperature drops considerably and the
volume of the ocean decreases greatly. The water that would otherwise be in the ocean is
frozen as ice in continental glaciers, or as sea ice in the oceans. During the peak of the last
glacial period, global sea level was approximately 100 meters (328 feet) lower than it is today.
Only when the temperature began to warm did the glaciers melt and flow back into the ocean.
This is just one example of how the global climate can have a substantial effect on sea level.
It is estimated that most of the increase in sea level will be from as the result of global warming,
which will cause thermal expansion of the oceans. Thermal expansion is caused when
seawater expands because of the higher temperature of the water. Since the oceans absorb heat
from the atmosphere, when the atmosphere becomes warmer so will the oceans. Warm
seawater has a greater volume than cold seawater. As the temperature of the ocean increases so
will the total ocean volume. The increased volume will cause the level of the water in the
oceans to rise”.
If someone could crunch some numbers we can find out just how much thermal expansion is contributing to the belief that sea levels are rising how many years we have left before the sea level rises 100 metres to what they were in the last glacial period.
I don’t think a rise of 20 cm in the next 100 years will cause us any grief, do you?

dungfungus 11:23 am 28 Jan 15

rosscoact said :

jazzamac said :

dungfungus said :

Can you also explain how the warm water is going to find its way between the glacier and the land mass it is on?

My views may be narrow but they are factual, not modelled.

Because the glacial ice extends out into the ocean and forms an ice shelf. It sits on top of the water, where the warmer water underneath it melts the ice.

Took me all of about 10 mins to do some research.

Have a read of this http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/shrinking-ice-shelves/ice-shelves/

No amount of reason, evidence or science fact or even basic physics will counter the automatic naysaying of blinkered denialists. It just wastes time and effort and should be treated as slightly annoying background noise, think galahs in a tree drunk on fermenting Lilli Pilli

But galahs actually exist and even when they are drunk they make more sense than the latest crop of “climate scientists”.
I heard one on ABC Radio this morning referring to “climate disruption”. It isn’t the climate that is changing, it is the name of the alleged condition which started as global warming, then climate change, then climate variability and now climate disruption. They could make fantasy movies about this sort of stuff. I say fantasy because none of these conditions actually exist.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site